Thomas v. Franco et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/8/11. (DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert Thurman Thomas, Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 James Franco, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-2279-PHX-GMS (ECV) ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 17 United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 18 Docs. 1, 9. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 9 at 6. The 19 Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R 20 and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain 21 review of the R&R. Id. at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72; 22 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 23 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review 24 the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) 25 (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 26 subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de 27 novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The 28 Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will 1 accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district 2 court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 3 made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, 4 or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 5 magistrate judge with instructions.”). 6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. Magistrate Judge Voss’s R&R (Doc. 9) is accepted. 8 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 9 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 10 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event 11 Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because 12 reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. 13 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 14 DATED this 8th day of June, 2011. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?